NO AWARD!

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 428, 25 August 1908, Page 3

NO AWARD!

For Farm Labour.

Arbitration Court Deems it

Unnecessary

Dunedin, August 21

Mr Justice Sim, in delivering judgment on the Canterbury farm labourers’ dispute, said the Court had a discretion as to whether or not to make an award ; but it declined to do so in the present case. It appeared to the Court that in dealing with farm labourers generally the Union had failed to prove the existence of any substantial grievance or abuse that would justify the interference of the Court with the whole of the farming industry of Canterbury. Further, it appeared to be quite impracticable to fix any definite hours for the daily work ol a general farm hand without altering materially the system under which farming was carried on at the present time.

The Court was not satisfied that it was practicable to fix what would be a fair minimum wage for farm hands. If the minimum were fixed low—at, for example, 20s weekly—the result might be to bring down wages, which would be an undesirable result. If the minimum was fixed at 25s or 27s 6d per week, a considerable burden would be thrown upon the farrping industry and would increase the cost of farming by many thousands of pounds, and the effect of any such increase in wages would be to discourage the employment of labour and induce farmers to avoid grain growing and other operations involving the employment of labour. It had not been proved that the men ‘were being sweated. They were provided with food and shelter, and if the pecuniary wages were small, it might be a case where they were not worth more to,the farmer, and such men might have a difficulty in earning a living at any other work.

The judgment proceeds : “ The conclusion we have come to is that it is not practicable to make an award fixing the hours of work and wages for general farm hands without altering seriously the conditions under which farming is now carried on. If a strong case had been made out for interference, the Court might have felt compelled to make an award and an attempt to regulate the hours of work and the rate of wages of general farm hands. Such a case, however, was not ‘made out, and the Court is thus relieved of the necessity of making a perilous attempt to regulate by award the whole of the farming interest of the Dominion.”

There seemed to be no necessity for interference by the Court on behalf of those engaged in harvest work. As to shepherds, musterers, and packers, the award made between the Union and the sheep-owners fixed the minimum wage for the musterers at the rate fixed under the Otago and Southland award of this year, and fixed those for packers, employed in connection with mustering, at 30s per week. This award only applied to workers engaged specifically as musterers or packers ; and regular farm or station hands assisting in mustering or employed in packing will not come within the scope of the award. The Court was not satisfied that there was any necessity for making an award dealing with shepherds’ wages. The question of a living wage did not arise in the case of shepherds. Mr McCullough, the workers’ representative on the Court, dissents from the above judgment, which is signed by Mr Justice Sim and Mr S. Brown (employers’ representative). Mr McCullough says: ‘‘lam strongly of opinion that grounds exist which justify and render necessary an interference of the Court, and that it is possible to make a workable award on the subject.”